Those are thy options, this poll will last for one week. Then the Results will be posted in a new thread.
Vote: Yes
[ August 20, 2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Rhaegar The Fool ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Hmmm.. I'm assuming you mean the current system (electoral college) as opposed to using popular vote to elect presidents...
Does yes mean to keep the status quo?
FG
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Yes, a yes vote is for keeping what we have now, a no is to fnd another solution.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Yes, electoral college is good for you. And it has lots of vitamin c!
I mean...er...just yes.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Yes. (if college was good enough for me, its good enough for the @#$@#$@# electorals)
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
No, I don't think its fair to the people that live in states that is already set in its position, like if a person in NY wants to vote Republican his vote won't really count.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
No, not in it's current form, though I would support a modified, more elastic version.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Absolutely, positively, unequivocally NO.
And I've felt that way about it since long before the 2000 presidential election.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Vote: undecided
FG
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Popular vote would be messier but I believe it would be alot more fair.
No.
(Unless someone can convince me otherwise...I'm open to that.)
[ August 20, 2004, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Khal Drogo (Member # 6786) on :
Voting a yes.
Though it may be flawed it is the best alternative we have at the moment.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
Yes
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, preferably to be modified for assigning electoral votes by congressional districts with statewide majority vote assigning the two votes each state gets automatically.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Yes...
Why? Because it serves as a buffer from chaotic direct democracy (aka a fickle public) and more importantly to enhance State rights and individual sovereignty.
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
Yes.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I can see how it enhances states rights, but individual sovereignty? I keep thinking some guy from Peoria is muscling in on my vote. Unless you think states' rights necessarily bolster individual sovereignty.
[ August 20, 2004, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
sorry... I ment the individual sovereignty of the States. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
No
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
A tentative yes.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
My vote is yes, I believe it exists.
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
Yes, It's worked fairly well with few big stinks. I'm of the opinion, if it ain't broke don't fix it and I can not say that the system is broke.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
No.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Since I have my doubts that "my" elected officials (on several levels) are truly voting according to the popular vote of the residents they represent, then my vote is NO.
If I had more faith that the real vote of the people is being represented in the electoral vote, I'd be more likely to vote yes.
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)